Kurt Vonnegut once wrote “Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae.” I can only assume that he would think the same of a critiqu of theater.

I mostly disagree with this particular thought; because I believe that art of all sorts, both novels and theatre performances, have important things to say about the world and the ability to affect people in profound ways. That said, I would endorse the opposite opinion: that anyone who expresses rage and loathing for a reviewer is preposterous. Certainly you can hate that he was loud when he shouldn’t have been (a no-no in the theatre, though perhaps less so in a show like Powerhouse). Certainly you can think him unqualified for leaving before the performance was done (though there are many, many times when you can be sure a book isn’t worth the time to finish well before you reach the end). Certainly you can fault him for being intoxicated and flirting with the actresses (though I personally think there is nothing inherently wrong with drinking or flirting). Certainly you can think he’s bad at his job (which I do not dispute, though I am not prepared to assert).

But why is it that any of these things should cause you such consternation? I think we can all realize that though they are employed by the paper, each reviewer is responsible for his own reviews. That’s why they get by-lines. Feel free to spout vitriol against the reviewer if you want to (though I think it makes more sense just to disregard his point of view), but don’t level allegations of pointlessness at the entirety of Fringe & Purge because you abhor one of it’s guest commentators.

It was right of the paper to publish his review, as poorly founded as it may or may not have been, because it was an honest representation of the reviewers thoughts on the piece, which is all a review is supposed to be. It was right of them to bring the subject to our further attention with the post to which we have all commented. And, Matthew, it was right for them to neither support nor reject his review, because it is in controversial situations such as these that objectivity in reporting is most important.

So I must respectfully disagree with you, FringeLove, when you write, “I know that for everything that I have said there aren’t any responses that can cover up your short comings City Paper.” They may have shortcomings, but they have not tried to cover them up. Rather they have aired their dirty laundry for all of us to scrutinize. And you are wrong to think that no response can be made to your gripes, because Mr. Reed’s logic and integrity in printing the offending review were both sound. Without the review in question, we would not be having the spirited and philisophical dialogue on ethics that we are now having.

The following post appeared Sunday, July 20, on the official Capital Fringe Festival FRINGE PHOTO BLOG:
“Where Did Bob’s Photos Go?” by Bob Morrison.

“If you looked recently for my photographs and they weren’t here I apologize. My web site host rents storage space from amazon.com. Amazon experienced problems all day Sunday that shut down my web site among many others. That killed my photos here because they are linked to my web site, BBPPix.com. The problems have been mostly fixed and I hope all will be back to normal very soon.
UPDATE Sunday 11:30 p.m. More problems and the whole web site host is down. They predict it will be back up shortly. I predict there will be intermittent problems all night. Sorry.”

http://capfringe08pix.blogspot.com/2008/07/where-did-bobs-photos-go.html

At the time, and certainly after the fact, I was able to see both sides of the story. Primarily, I wanted to see the ending, as Jason Schlafstein wrote an engaging script and I deeply admired the actors for being able to commit to a performance I probably couldn’t on my best day. I also felt as though delaying the subsequent performance by several minutes on a Friday night didn’t warrant shutting down a production mid-scene with no warning to a paying audience or the seven actors on stage who happened to have no clothes on.

I was also able to see the side of the following company, complete with different sets, a different sound tech, different stage crew and different cast who would have to rush through their setup, possibly leading to technical glitches and/or distracted performances. I understand Fringe’s strict no late entry policy and their wish that no one be frozen out of a performance they had paid to see due to a show running long. However, all things considered, this is above all a festival of free artistic expression in which artists can display their vision with as little attention to commercial viability as is realistically feasible. Let the actors act and let the audience experience the performance as intended. That’s why we go to Fringe.

Just to let you know, I am friends with a cast member in “Powerhouse” and I was actually at the 10:00pm show on July 17th. This is the same show that your reviewer was “at”. Check and you will see that I am correct. I am just here to clear a few things up. your reviewer came into the show, and I remember him because he introduced himself to the female cast members during the pre-show while they were handing out glow sticks and getting people to dance and told them that he and his friend were “having a contest to see who could get the most e-mail addresses and he was winning and wanted to keep it that way.” After they told them to keep dancing he asked for their phone numbers; he was obviously intoxicated.

I was astonished when I came across his review complaining about the interaction with the audience, was he just upset that the girls in the show wouldn’t give him their numbers? And coming to a show drunk, reeking of beer with a friend does not sound like a dedicated reviewer to me, what about to you? I sincerely hope this isn’t the policy that you give your reviewers, to come drunk to shows and hit on the actors.

Now, he said and you reported that he left after 40 minutes of a 1 hour and 10 minute show. This is laughable. The video played at the beginning of the show, of which he talked loudly through while making wisecracks at with his friend and proceeded to yell at the actors telling them to “turn up the music” even when the show started. I can speak for myself and the rest of the audience when I say we were more than glad when he and his friend left after 15 minutes of being there. Thats right, 15 minutes, not 40 minutes, 15 minutes. So yes, he was correct in saying there was no story, at least there was no story in the play that he saw, the 15 minute version.

I have no problem with a negative review, in fact, they help me to weed out the bad and good shows and which to attend, however this review made me never want to read the city paper again for theatre reviews. I wonder what is being done to clean up the mess this reviewer has created. I am assuming nothing considering that you praise him in your article citing that “he has traveled the world and works for a big honkin’ international-development organization” as reasons why his outrageously disrespectful behavior was somehow acceptable; at least to the standards of the City Paper.

That is all I have to say, and I am not expecting a response, because I know that for everything that I have said there aren’t any responses that can cover up your short comings City Paper.

Sincerely,
FringeLove

As for Abe’s comment above, I saw the Matzo ball man offend his audience at the fringe preview at R&R a few weeks ago. As a Christian in the bible belt – I think a Jesus stand-up routine hits below the belt.

How the fringe can give a platform to something so obviously antisemitic is plain disturbing. Four of us, all Jewish, walked out and I hear it’s not the first time it’s happen with this show in particular.

Get your act together guys. The reviewers are just working with what they’re given.

Restaurant reviewers, movie reviewers, any other reviewers are expected to soldier on through whatever they are addressing, because it’s their damn job to do so. Otherwise they don’t deserve any extra attention for their opinions. This is not like spitting out an unpalatable bite of food before swallowing; it’s like leaving before dessert because you hated the entree. And, my friends, that is simply not allowed in anything approaching a responsible review.

I don’t really care how experienced, well-traveled, or otherwise prescient the reviewer might be. He might be entirely correct in his predictions, but reviewers are paid for opinions derived from the full experience, not prognostications based on samples. So make up your minds – either support his review, or don’t – but this entry is really just trying to get away with neither.